Navigate:

Even deficit hawks push some energy spending

Some of the administration’s most prominent critics on Solyndra — including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) — had urged DOE to approve loan guarantees for local renewable-energy companies. The administration’s defenders made sure to steer reporters to the incriminating letters, and sometimes the hypocrisy would make minor waves in the media. But the lawmakers largely shrugged it off. Any outrage back home was muted,to say the least.

In a similar vein, Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune is carving out a spot as a deficit hawk, but he was at the center of a Midwestern effort earlier this session to defend funding for corn ethanol — albeit at a diminished and diminishing rate — amid a bipartisan push to strip the biofuel of its federal support.

Text Size

Meanwhile, Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander is leading the charge to kill the very same extension — deriding it as a wasteful favor to “Big Wind” — while backing federal support for nuclear power.

Free-market advocacy groups say it is a perpetual challenge to keep lawmakers in line.

Heritage Action, for example, keeps a scorecard for fiscal conservatism and docks points for legislators if they vote for tax or spending incentives that target specific industries.

“That forces them to have a conversation with their constituents about why they voted to favor one industry and not another,” Heritage Action’s Holler said. “What we tell [lawmakers] is that ‘to the extent that you’re comfortable doing that, that’s your choice, but we’re going to make sure that your constituents are aware of what’s going on.’”

But Holler concedes it’s an uphill battle to get legislators to pitch ideological purity to their constituents instead of offering them cold, hard cash.

“It’s a whole lot easier to go out and promise a carveout for someone,” he said, “than it is to explain why a level playing field is better for everyone.”

I have yet to meet an anti-green-energy person. As soon as there is a viable, at least semi-practical, affordable source of green energy, we will all enthusiastically jump on the green energy band wagon. Until then, the government should restrict its efforts and our money to research and only research. The entrepreneur who comes up with something doable knows full well that he automatically become a 1%-er, which is all the incentive that has ever been required.

In the meantime, the President’s ideological green dream is killings us. He doesn’t seem to be able to spell the word “pragmatic.”

It cracks me the hell up that, if Messrs. Obama and Chu's dream of $5.00+ a gallon gas comes true (which seems likely at the moment), the President can kiss his second term goodbye. Thirty percent of the populace have no clue who Joe Biden is, but they will focus like a laser on how much money it takes to fill up their tanks, especially the downtrodden “middle class” that Mr. Obama claims to champion.

Be prepared for every disingenuous machination possible to reduce gas prices temporarily until after the election.

The EPA's sole purpose has been to destroy America's ability to develop their own energy resources.

Even assuming that “man-made” global warming is 100% settled science, do the geniuses in Washington not grasp that the all-important “environment” isn’t benefiting one freakin’ whit from the Obama Administration’s EPA policies? The green freaks in charge at the moment run around pleading with (and/or paying) other countries to produce fossil fuels on our behalf. It seems they don’t intuit the simple scientific reality that production of fossil fuels elsewhere will have the same impact on the environment as producing them here. They dismiss the seriously substantial benefits that tapping into our own resources would reap. This has got to be the biggest practical joke ever played on the American people.

"As soon as there is a viable, at least semi-practical, affordable source of green energy, we will all enthusiastically jump on the green energy band wagon. Until then, the government should restrict its efforts and our money to research and only research. The entrepreneur who comes up with something doable knows full well that he automatically become a 1%-er, which is all the incentive that has ever been required."

Agreed. In full. It's how anything and everything in this country became "Big Anything." Entrpeneurship is the engine that drove plastics, textiles, oil, silicon valley... you name it.

But then you lost me with this:

"In the meantime, the President’s ideological green dream is killings us. He doesn’t seem to be able to spell the word “pragmatic.' "

If what you propose as a truism for American growth is really based upon principles that we both agree on, why is a presidential push (from ANY president) to develop new energy solutions seen as anything other than "pushing the pragmatic?"

As I see it, the only difference of opinion lies in whether a person takes a "long view" or "short view."

"Short view" folks are going to play the hand that is on the table. Read: Poker.

If we now have an admin who is banking on chess, it seems no less risky to me than an admin who is banking on poker. In some ways, the "chess strategem" seems more likely to succeed, because of two indisputable facts:

2. The counrties that leave the old paradigm and reduce their dependance on Old Tech are farther ahead of the competition when the "New Tech" becomes the satus quo.

We're already way behnd Germany and others in upgrading/updating our national power grid. Solyndra was undercut by China in the war of cost-effectiveness, because they got out in front of us on the mass-manufacturing end. In both cases, we were caught flat-footed, while our competitors stole opportunities away from us. Opportunities that we used to steal from the rest of the world. America has had a proud history of being the first, fastest, and most fearless... except for this particular issue. Ask yourself why progress has been so slow in this regard, and I'm sure the word 'obstructionism' will be somewhere in the answer (...and this comes from someone who earned his paycheck for 5+ years from Std.Oil/BP, back in the day)

How much longer must we sit on our hands, until the next "Bill Gates of Power Enterprise" changes the world economic landscape? While the "Big Status Quo's" lobby congress for their own [archaic, 100-year-old] interests?

If America wants to get out in front of the world again, the venue that will put them there will be Green Energy. What's the problem with having a national leader who's willing to make that a national priority?

I'm confessing up-front that I don't have all the answers.... which is why I'm framing my questions to you as I have. Frankly, I don't see as much of a downside to innovation and risk-taking on this front, as I see the inherant risk in standing pat until it's too late.

I see that you've made mention of Chu's "EuroGasPrice" quote... and that's all good with me- you made your talking points. But I'm more interested in hearing from you about The Real World Landscape, going forward.

What steps would you make to increase our independance, and establish ourselves as world leaders in the New 9energy) Milennium?

Please help me out here... I'll learn from anywhere I can get good intel. Let's start a dialogue, shall we?

Please help me out here... I'll learn from anywhere I can get good intel. Let's start a dialogue, shall we?

Well said Clemzilla, and somehow I'm certain that you are confident that I don't have much to teach you. On the other hand, you do not have as much to teach me as you might think having formed some broad conclusions based on a comparatively brief post. There is pragmatism in the long view for the reasons you set forth; nevertheless I could not disrespect this President's energy methodologies more, whether they relate to the short or long view.

Let me assure you, I've pretty much listened to... or read... every word that has ever come out of Mr. Obama's mouth pre and post election. More than anything else, I was and continue to be profoundly disappointed in discovering the true nature of his character. I firmly believe that if he is re-elected, it will be due to ideologues that have no where else to go, supported by the the chronically clueless, who continue to believe the fantasy that they are being "helped" or those who know better but have been drained of all ambition by being "helped" for far too long.